I think imartin2k is reading this:

  surprisingly there is no concern about the under-
  representation of women in lower-level technical
  jobs, such as car mechanics or plumbing

And then reading this, two paragraphs below in the same article:

  These differences are socially important because these
  tend to be prestigious occupations, and practically
  important because the different numbers of men and women
  in these fields contribute, in part, to the sex
  difference in earnings.

When I read the article, this incongruity made me feel the surprise was feigned for rhetorical effect. And I was shocked - shocked! - to find crass rhetorical tricks in an article about gender bias in STEM :)